Discussion in 'Referee' started by MassachusettsRef, Apr 22, 2021.
Youtube video is blocked
I saw the first SA red card live and was surprised it was given. I think it's a YC but that's just my opinion. I certainly didn't think it was a clear and obvious error that required the VAR to upgrade Conger's YC.
I disagree about this not being SFP and not a C&O Error. He has zero chance of completing this challenge fairly. It's from behind and even if he times it to get the ball, there will be at minimum careless contact though the back of the Mexican player. And then the contact is well up on the Achilles. If it's on the heel then sure I can get the argument, but this is a UEFA 9 IMO.
On the SFP, in my head at least I'd have it on the lower end of intervention because the contact is not as solid as it could be, but the force is there, little to no chance of playing the ball fairly even if that's the intent, and the Achilles is in play.
Basically, could be worse, but the danger to the safety of the opponent is enough to make the lack of a red card a clear and obvious error that should be corrected IMO.
That's fair enough, and Guida was 4O so probably correct about it being a UEFA 9, but that's not getting overturned in the Premier League. The beauty of different interpretations of the same law...
I, too, think VAR was right to intervene. (Though I have not watched enough of the Olympics to know if it is consistent with how VAR has been used on SFP in other games.)
(As far as what they would do in the PL, well, from what I've seen. I think it's hard to make a case that the PL has been a leader in quality implementation of video review.)
I haven't seen the referee assignments for the women's quarterfinals yet, which seems a little odd. Except that CAF tweeted yesterday that a CAF crew was making history by officiating a quarterfinal for the first time, led by Salima Mukansanga, in Great Britain vs Australia
My only hesitation here is not over whether it was SFP or not. I think SFP is the preferred call. I just think from the angle shown, you can't quite see how high the contact is and how flush it is, as you say. Without those component clearly visible, I just question how "clearly wrong" it is. Like @Englishref says, that's not getting overturned in EPL on that evidence alone. But maybe where I break from him is that I think with an additional angle, it probably would be. I'd actually argue that, in MLS, a PRO referee would ask for and expect another angle to see the point of contact better.
Overall, I think I have two somewhat related points here:
1) The angle shown to the referee matters.
2) You need to show the best angle to ensure you're presenting the best case for "clearly wrong to only be a yellow" and not just "looks like SFP."
Did the attacker run through the defender's back (left shoulder)? The highlight above makes it difficult to tell and I can't find a better one. I have to assume that was looked at though on VAR and determined to not be the case. I think the Mexican player was trying to sell it that way though.
Spain : Côte d’Ivoire - VALENZUELA (VEN)
Japan : New Zealand - ELFATH (USA) [Penso]
Brazil : Egypt - BEATH (AUS)
Korea Republic : Mexico - GRINFELD (ISR)
Three matches in seven days for Elfath’s trio is a lot. This assignment can be avoided, so to speak, so seems pretty clear it’s a trial run for the Gold medal match.
One semi definitely won’t have a UEFA team so either Soares Dias or Kabakov there. The other won’t have a South American team so I’d expect Gonzalez.
Not seeing how Barton fits, but maybe there will be a surprise. Gomes feels like the African referee who would work again, perhaps on a medal match.
If Spain lose, confederation neutrality basically dictates that it goes to a UEFA referee?
Unless Elfath is just seen as the better performer and Mexico isn’t there either. It is not like this is a top tier UEFA corps, so there isn’t an obvious option there.
And I wouldn’t sleep on how Elfath’s efficiency with VAR helps. Also the VAR angle itself. You have Penso as a main VAR on a knockout match. A guy who never went to a FIFA tournament and had his badge for a year or two doesn’t get that assignment unless FIFA is impressed. Remember Kelly was VAR to Elfath in the U20 final. If Elfath-Penso are firing on all cylinders as a team, that has to count for something.
"I disagree about this not being SFP and not a C&O Error. He has zero chance of completing this challenge fairly. It's from behind and even if he times it to get the ball, there will be at minimum careless contact though the back of the Mexican player..."
The problem (for me) is this is pretty much the language I would use (having learned it here at BigSoccer) trying to explain a yellow card to someone. (And sometimes, yes, they did get the ball) What's the difference between red card and yellow card in how we explain it, at least up to this point in the explanation?
"And then the contact is well up on the Achilles" OK, so we can start differentiating between where, exactly, the defender's foot (or studs) land. But then I notice we're talking about different angles to tell where they land.
Is this really where referees want to go? Where every decision on a tackle has to be adjudicated using multiple camera angles? That is, everything has to go through VAR? Because that's where we're going if those are the standards: exactly where the studs land and whether they land flush or not. This is an impossible standard to follow for an on-the-field referee
Looking it up as to who has done the Final since the '96 Olympics and there is this weird pattern/coincidence.
Basically, every other Olympics the Final referee does a knockout match before the Final. The other times they are kept away until the Final.
In '96 Collina did a quarterfinal and the Final.
In 2000 Ramos didn't have a quarterfinal.
In '04 Vassaras did a quarterfinal and then the Final.
In '08 Kassai was kept clean until the Final.
In '12 Clattenburg did a quarterfinal and the Final.
In '16 Faghani was kept clean until the Final.
So if the pattern holds then your Final referee is from the quarterfinal pool.
The point of contact has always mattered but without VAR officials often got it wrong. The contact occurring on the top of the foot versus the lower leg often determines yellow versus red. Studs on the heel versus the Achilles determines yellow versus red in most cases. An arm to the neck versus an arm to the face makes a difference. This isn't anything new it's just with VAR you now correct the times where the officials didn't quite see the exact contact clearly.
That was fast! Thank you. I didn't know it was so black-and-white in terms of point of contact. LOTG? Or...? Directives, guidelines, generally accepted convention and custom?
It's more directives and training examples. When you look at the laws of the game they don't really say a whole lot. But the examples I gave are considerations of red card versus yellow card. It doesn't always mean it's a 100% thing but it's used push you one direction or the other.
UEFA releases their referee assistance program (RAP) twice a year which includes hundreds of clips from various UEFA matches and it is used to train referees across Europe in what the top of UEFA views to be foul versus yellow versus red on tackles, handballs, and other types of incidents.
To add on to this UEFA has a 0 to 10 scale that they use to judge how forceful a tackle or foul is and how referees should evaluate it. Usually a five, six, or seven is a yellow card and a nine or a 10 is a red card with an eight being considered borderline. In my opinion The tackle that we're talking about on the Achilles is a nine and clear red card. Others may feel it's more of an eight and perhaps shouldn't have been sent down by the var. But that's where the whole opinion thing happens with judging fouls that are well opinion.
I just find it bizarre that it's about an hour to kickoff to the first quarterfinal in the Olympics women's tournament and there seem to be no announcements on the referee assignments. Of course I don't have the insider access that others might. Someone in the women's forum did some quality snooping to find out Stephanie Frappart appears to be in the center for Canada vs Brazil
They've been announced. You just have to know where to look.
Women's quarterfinal assignments:
Canada vs Brazil
R: FRAPPART Stephanie (FRA)
AR1: NICOLOSI Manuela (FRA)
AR2: O'NEILL Michelle (IRL)
4O: STAUBLI Esther (SUI)
VAR: STEINHAUS-WEBB Bibiana (GER)
AVAR: BTGEN Abdulkadir (TUR)
Great Britain vs Australia
R: MUKANSANGA Salima (RWA)
AR1: KWIMBIRA Bernadettar (MAW)
AR2: NJOROGE Mary (KEN)
4O: ALVES Edina (BRA)
VAR: MILLOT Benoit (FRA)
AVAR: FU Ming (CHN)
Sweden vs Japan
R: VENEGAS Lucila (MEX)
AR1: CHAVEZ Mayte (MEX)
AR2:CAUDILLO Enedina (MEX)
4O: BORJAS Melissa (HON)
VAR: VIGLIANO Mauro (ARG)
AVAR: CUNHA Andres (URU)
Netherlands vs USA
R: JACEWICZ Kate (AUS)
AR1: KIM Kyoung Min (KOR)
AR2: LEE Seul Gi (KOR)
4O: YAMASHITA Yoshimi (JPN)
VAR: AL MARRI Abdulla (QAT)
AVAR: BIN JAHARI Muhammad (SGP)
The rare mistaken identity VAR intervention at 116' in CAN/BRA
Watching the kicks, it impresses me how well GKs have adapted to keeping that one foot on or over the line until the ball is in play.
Yeah it seems like we've come full circle from the last WWC where it VAR was being used left and right on PKs/KFTPM
Maybe the correct point is on the armpit of the dutch defender but I'm surprised this offside check took well over two minutes.
Commentator didn't seem to think they're drawing lines in the Olympic VORs. Length of the check on the disallowed USA goal in the second half would indicate otherwise.
I haven't watched much of the Olympics. Have we seen the Virtual Offside Line at any point in the other games?